EA Building Microtransactions Into All of Its Future Games

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EA Building Microtransactions Into All of Its Future Games

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday February 27, 2013 @12:50PM from the do-not-want dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Develop reports on comments from Blake Jorgensen, Electronic Arts' Chief Financial Officer, speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference. As you may have guessed from the name of the conference, the business aspect of EA was the topic. Jorgensen said, 'The next and much bigger piece [of the business] is microtransactions within games. ... We're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be, and consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business.' This is particularly distressing given EA's recent implementation of microtransations in Dead Space 3, where you can spend money to improve your weaponry."

34 of 303 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And in a nod to Xzibit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 12:52 · Score: 5, Funny

They will soon be building microtransactions into their microtransactions, so you can pay money while you're paying money.
Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 12:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any time you can buy your way to victory is a quick way to lose any hardcore fan base, and most likely the audience that will keep playing your game after release-hype
1. Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by sesshomaru · 2013-02-27 14:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Game Tester: Wow, you know the single player mode in this game is a lot of fun even without having made even a single microtransaction.
  EA Executive: Programmer, make it not fun unless the player pays for microtransactions.
  Programmer: By your command.
  
  --
  "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
2. Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by JMJimmy · 2013-02-27 14:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Here's why it's bad:
  They're trying to maximize revenue from every game, which on the surface seems like a good thing for them as a company. Unfortunately it's incredibly shortsighted.
  Given these assumptions
  - People only have so much money to spend on entertainment.
  - Given finite resources, if you spend more money on one title you have less to spend on another.
  There are two real possibilities that I see
  1) In a market with little/no competition where gamers spend their money in fewer games because they are concentrating their resources on the games they play most. This means that there will be fewer titles produced because fewer will succeed - the blockbusters will dominate. Fewer games = bored gamers or danger of a massive investment in a blockbuster flopping (see Too Human, Kingdoms of Amulur, etc)
  2) In a market with lots of competition they will make themselves less relevant. Smaller publishers do and will offer better deals on games that are just as entertaining. The big publishers are really backing themselves into a corner by rehashing the same game over and over.
  3) The free to play trap. Certain games do very well with offering a solid game with optional purchases, but then greedy companies like EA and Microsoft twist that to offer as little as possible to get a person interested and then try to gouge them on "optional" purchases. So called micro transactions running as high as $20 when full retail games can be purchased for less.
  By doing any one of these things they alienate their customers, shrink their market (not to be confused with their revenue), and the end result is fewer people playing fewer games. This has already happened to the movie industry where prices are too high to bother, sequels dominate, big budget movies are the name of the game and there are fewer and fewer every year. End result: The demise of the rental industry, fewer people in theatres, and rampant piracy.
  Study after study has shown: the more people do something, the more they talk about it with their social circles, the more people become involved. While you may not get as much out of each person, by keeping prices as accessible as possible and a diverse product line you safeguard against major losses and increase the chances of major successes.
3. Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by Charliemopps · 2013-02-27 14:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's not the problem. The problem is simple: Microtransactions give the game designer a monetary incentive to make the game grindy and unfun, with paid keys that unlock the grind. This is very clear in most modern games as the biggest selling items are XP boost items. Without them it can take 2 to 4 times as long to advance. What exactly is the publisher selling when they sell XP boost items?
4. Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by Seumas · 2013-02-27 14:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Buying your way to victory very often isn't the case. Take DOTA 2, for example. It's riddled with microtransactions for the F2P title. They don't actually *do* anything. it's still kind of gross, though. Not so much in a F2P game as in everything else, though. Nothing like having a giant "BUY DLC HERE!" or "YOU CAN GET MORE GOLD TO BUY WEAPONS IF YOU PAY REAL MONEY!" buttons in the middle of the game you paid $65 for.
  Video games are, increasingly, becoming a demonstration of what happens when a form of art and creativity is taken over completely and absolutely by business. Buy guys who don't refer to things as "games" or "movies" but as "intellectual property". That isn't to say there's anything wrong with treating it like a business, but it's a business whose product is compelling creative content and unique experiences for their customers. Instead, they're finding ways to simultaneously devalue the experience while putting a value on every single thing. It's gross.
5. Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by Belial6 · 2013-02-27 14:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They are telling you that their game is so crappy that you will pay them cash to not play it.
6. Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by SerpentMage · 2013-02-27 16:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  One word... Zynga!!!
  Take a good look at that company and how it fared. What EA is proposing is a social game a'la Zynga. The problem is that such a business is showing that it does not work. People get excited about things, but then quickly move away because they are being nickled and dimed to death. People are lazy and the moment you have to keep ponying up money is the moment you say, "is this worth it?" And the moment a player takes a step back and makes that thought you the game producer have lost.
  Here is how it goes:
  1) Awesome game and I will tell my friends.
  2) My friends are into this game
  3) Friends have bought feature X and they are playing much faster than I
  4) Many I need feature X as well
  5) Feature X is awesome!!!
  6) Oh wait cool Feature Y is out and I will tell my friends to get it!
  7) Now I have Feature X, and Y! Awesome game play
  8) Feature Z is out and it is way more awesome.
  9) Wait, will there be a feature AA? What is Feature Z going to cost me? How much money am I burning through playing this game?
  Step 9 is the brutal step and once your company is associated with this, its game OVER for your company. Hence why I say, look at Zynga. So how is Zynga trying to get out of the maliase? Simple online gambling! Yes the company that tried to make legal and legit games has to look at gambling and addictions that cause you to loose your money.
  When will EA, and Activision hit gambling? Earlier than you think IMO.
  
  --
  
  "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
  "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
7. Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 18:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  EA already has added "gambling" to SWTOR.
  You can spend REAL money to buy these crate things that contain RANDOM items of questionable in-game value. Now, you can't exactly turn that back into real world money, but you're essentially falling into the Pokemon style situation where you could end up paying hundreds of dollars to get that one "card" you really wanted. Another guy could get it on the first "pack" bought.
8. Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad by Opportunist · 2013-02-27 20:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Now let's ponder for a moment why there is still such a huge market for desktop gaming when everyone and their dog has a mobile device and the games there are cheaper... hmm... could it be that a lot of people do NOT like that kind of game model?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 12:55 · Score: 5, Funny

All their games will be free now right?
1. Re:And.. by cheater512 · 2013-02-27 13:11 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Course not.
  Oh and in 6 months time they will add advertising to their games as well.
  No the retail price won't change with that either.
2. Re:And.. by cheater512 · 2013-02-27 14:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Oh that must mean its a free easily downloadable game then......huh no it isnt.
  You are paying to see ads. Its supposed to be the other way around.
3. Re:And.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-02-27 15:05 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Actually I like the way ads are added ingame to titles like Battlefield 2142 with the real billboards and posters.
  Because all those vintage 2013 products, services, and brands add so much to the realism of the frozen battlefields of the 22nd century?
4. Re:And.. by L4t3r4lu5 · 2013-02-27 22:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You are paying to see ads. Its supposed to be the other way around.
  Ads paying to see you? http://www.facebook.com/
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
RIP by zlives · 2013-02-27 12:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Alas, poor EA! we knew thee well
1. Re:RIP by Omestes · 2013-02-27 13:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Just give it up and accept that you're no longer a part of the lucrative video game market you once were when you were a kid.
  
  Despite the fact that I now have a disposable income? When I was a kid I had to beg for game cartridges, and I might have, if I was lucky, gotten one for Xmas and one on my birthday. For the PC I generally only got them from the bargain bin, or used from places like EB (before they were bought by Gamestop). I remember saving like hell for Blizzard and Interplay titles, then beg the remainder from my parents.
  Now I might buy a $60 game a month (I generally don't, since there isn't that many good games coming out each month), it isn't that big of a deal. I don't even want to know what I spend on cheap games at GoG and Steam. I can spend money now, I couldn't as a kid. I don't have as much time for bullshit, but I have more money to reward good developers and publishers with. I'm not alone in this, most of the people I know in my age group still play games, tons of them, and now have money. Further, they control the purchases of their children now.
  I'd say I'm still very much part of the market.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
$60 for the game by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 12:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

$5 to unlock the start menu
Class system in games by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 12:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Pretty soon you will be able to tell if a person is rich by the gun they have in a game. The poor will walk around with pistole's the rich will drive tanks.
1. Re:Class system in games by IndustrialComplex · 2013-02-27 13:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  so its a reality sim?
  No. In a reality the poor drive around in tanks at the direction of the rich who are too busy playing with pistols at an exclusive game reserve.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Including retail games? by Lisias · 2013-02-27 12:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

As long you you didn't pay for the "retail" version (a.k.a. DVD / Blueray delivered ones), I don't see a problem. The developers has to be paid somehow, and if some people wants to pay for their games this way, no problem.
But if I pay the full retail price, I expect to be able to enjoy the game in full experience. Paying twice for the privilege of playing an already paid game is not an option for me. It shouldn't even be allowed, at first place.

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
1. Re:Including retail games? by xevioso · 2013-02-27 13:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem with this is that it undermines the community aspect of games. SimCity 4 has 10 years worth of community-built content, all built for free. It's amazing, truly.
  But SimCity 5 most likely will not have this sort of thing, seeing as how you must be online the entire time. What developer wants to make the Empire State Building with their own spare time if EA is going to put it on their store and sell it as a micro-transaction?
2. Re:Including retail games? by SydShamino · 2013-02-27 13:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  More likely, EA would let community developers create an Empire State Building, then sell it via EA's microtransaction site for $6.99, with EA taking a $2 cut.
  Then, with huge records showing what items sell best, EA can create their own version of the Eiffel Tower and Empire State Building and Lolcat Statue, etc., ban the third-party "copies" from the marketplace, and take all the money then on for themselves for those items, all while letting the community developers make pennies on the rarer stuff to keep the "marketplace thriving".
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
3. Re:Including retail games? by tompaulco · 2013-02-27 13:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  As long you you didn't pay for the "retail" version (a.k.a. DVD / Blueray delivered ones), I don't see a problem. The developers has to be paid somehow, and if some people wants to pay for their games this way, no problem.
  So you are against the First-sale Doctrine. Ok. That is a common thing these days from people who don't fully understand and or have a much more right wing view of copyright.
  I assume you are looking to repeal that also so that books, movies, and all the other things that it covers are changed as well?
  I don't know about the gp, but I prefer to pay full price for my software and have it all work. If I pay $60 for a title, I had better not have to buy anything extra to get 100% or to be competitive (if it is online). If someone wants the "free" version of the game, and then has to buy $100 worth of stuff, $1 at a time to play the whole game, that is fine with me. The Banks have managed to do this with "Free checking", where you actually pay more per month than if you bought the next higher level of checking (although why we have to pay someone to earn interest on my money I still can't figure out). But what I simply won't stand for is when I pay top dollar for a title and then have to pay extra just to have basic functionality. Case in Point: Quickbooks. You pay full price for the software, and then they want to charge you extra for payroll services, which were included in the cost in previous versions. They won't let you print W-2s without paying extra. I could go on and on.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
4. Re:Including retail games? by Lemming42 · 2013-02-27 14:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The answer to your rhetorical question is "because EA gives you a cut of the sales".
  Just look at Valve's current efforts with "Steam Workshop", where the community is allowed to build items for their more popular titles.
  They recently disclosed that at least one of the people who contributes content has already made over $500,000 from sales of their items.
Facebook Gold Account by cosm · 2013-02-27 13:01 · Score: 5, Funny

You must be a Battlefield 3 Premium Player to see this comment.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Re:Where are you going to go? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 13:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

The stuff you buy from Blizzard is cosmetic, it doesn't affect gameplay.
I guess you haven't played Diablo 3.
I'm Commander Shepard... by BitwizeGHC · 2013-02-27 13:26 · Score: 4, Funny

... and this is my favorite in-app purchase on the Citadel.

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
That's some executive decision at its finest by __aaqvdr516 · 2013-02-27 13:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

It takes a good game developer to make a micro transaction model work for a single particular game.
It takes an EA exec to force that model upon every game a publisher makes.
Re:Planetside 2 by Omestes · 2013-02-27 14:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Weapons can be purchased or cert points can be used.
For a RIDICULOUS amount of cert points. I still haven't really saved up enough certs to fully arm a character, much less upgrade my vehicles. You don't have to spend real money, but if you want to be competitive in under 6 months, you need to. That said, the default weapons aren't bad, and are generally pretty usable. Though if you're a VS Infiltrator you're really going to need a bolt action rifle, and upgrading AA in Max's is pretty much mandatory. I did play several months from launch, and didn't really feel the need to spend real money until I started to get serious about it.

Now, microtransactions in a full retail game? Fuck that. I wont buy it even to give it a chance.
Agreed. The only one I don't mind is Guild Wars 2, since microtransactions are covering server costs and their constant content updates, and don't increase power at all. I've thrown Arenanet a few bucks just because I want to support them, since I like what they are doing, and want them to keep doing it. In GW2, its optional, which is the most important thing for any game with microtransactions. The second I feel like I have to buy something, or the second I get out-competed by someone for anything other than skill, I quit.
I generally give money to F2P games I like, and don't play the ones that try to force it one me.
I'm really sad about TFA, since I've been trying to care about SimCity 5. Always on doesn't bug me as much as it does some, but the fact that they are going to make it like The Sims... that is probably a deal breaker. If ever a game had an annoying business model, it is The Sims.
Damn you Maxis. You were one of the best studios, and now you're pretty much dead.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Games so bad you will pay cash not to play them. by Belial6 · 2013-02-27 14:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

You just described how people can pay to overcome crappy game design. Letting people pay to skip part of your game is openly acknowledging that your game is so crappy that people will literally pay to not play it. Even if that is just part of your game, that isn't a good thing.
Re:Where are you going to go? by r0xtarninja · 2013-02-27 14:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Diablo 3 is built around the assumption of an auction house. Whether you pay in time via the gold auction house, or in cash with the real money one, if you want to play the game to any appreciable level you WILL use that damn auction house. Drop rates in the game are abysmal to the point where you really cannot properly outfit a character with only items you acquire yourself. THAT is what ruined the game for me. I know people can argue that you are buying items from other players and not Blizzard under this arrangement, but even if you only use the gold AH or just don't participate at all, your gameplay experience is affected.
I think that those are already built-in... by denzacar · 2013-02-27 15:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Taxes?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Blizzard did the same BS in Diablo 3 by HockeyPuck · 2013-02-27 18:16 · Score: 4, Informative

I played Diablo 1 and D2 and thoroughly enjoyed them. D3 came out and in the beginning I enjoyed it. Then I realized that to get better gear I had to visit the Gold Auction house.. so I would put my stuff up for auction and try to buy new/better stuff. 99% of the time I couldn't move my old stuff b/c there was always something better in the auction house....
Which would be great if I had tons of gold... so how do you get more gold?
1. Grind grind grind... kill the same dungeons over and over again. Pickup the gold, and whatever trash you find, sell it to the merchant for more gold. Grind grind grind.
2. Win the lottery. Something drops that actually worth something in the gold auction house.
3. Buy gold with real money.
The problem here is that gold in itself in D3 is basically worthless. I can recall when certain items were 10million gold. Then a few weeks later those same items were 40million gold. Are they more rare? Nope. There's just more gold available in game. So let's say you sold that item for 10million because you couldn't use it (wrong class). And you go on vacation for a few weeks. An equivalent item for your class would now be 40million gold. So now how do you get 30 million more gold?
Grind grind grind or hope something drops for you or say f-ck it and pay Blizzard a few bucks to get 40 million gold. Knowing that in a month's time that instead of you paying $5 to get the item, you'd need to pay $10 because you'd need 2x as much gold.
This is why I stopped playing D3. I realized in order to continue to advance I was playing to get gold for the auction house.
I uninstalled back in October and haven't gone back since.